Ecological Indicators 10 (2010) 1218–1225

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Ecological Indicators
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ecolind

Short communication

Assessment of coastal zone sustainable development: A case study

of Yantai, China
Liangju Yu a,b,c , Xiyong Hou a , Meng Gao a , Ping Shi a,∗
a
Yantai Institute of Coastal Zone Research, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Yantai, 264003, China
b
Institute of Oceanology, No. 7 Nanhai Road, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Qingdao 266071, China
c
Graduate School of the Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100049, China

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: The assessment of sustainable development is a challenging task as its measuring is rather complex with-
Received 14 October 2009 out a mature framework. In this paper, as a case study, a coastal city of China-Yantai was assessed for
Received in revised form 3 April 2010 sustainable development in the period from 1998 to 2007. We used a methodological framework based
Accepted 5 April 2010
on 36 indicators and three composite indices from the dimensions of environment, economy and society
subsystems. The assessment results indicated that Yantai was almost in the potentially unsustainable
Keywords:
development or intermediate sustainable development, except in 1998 and in 2007. Accordingly, the
Sustainable development
progress of sustainable development was divided into two stages in the light of the relative changes
Natural capital
GPI
of three subsystems. Some relevant issues, such as natural capital, GPI vs. GDP in sustainable develop-
GDP ment assessment were discussed. Finally, an uncertainty analysis was also given in the assessment. In
conclusion, the sustainable development in Yantai had experienced a shift from environment-based to
social–economic-based in the past 10 years.
© 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction opment is a rather vague nonoperational definition, researchers

As a result of the rapid development of industrialization and
urbanization, the coastal zone in China showed a rapid change dur-
ing the past few decades. In particular, the issues about coastal
ecology and environment had brought about a serious challenge
for coastal zone sustainable development (CZSD) (Chen and Chen,
2002; Huang et al., 2008). Ecological sustainability has also been
put forward due to the foreseeable threats represented by a serious
worldwide environmental degradation, this gives rise to an increas-
ing awareness of the profound impact of humans on the functioning
of marine ecosystems (Marques et al., 2009).
According to the definition of sustainable development
(Brundtland, 1987), the sustainable development of coastal zone
not only meets the increasing demand, but also protects ecology
and environment, without prejudice to future generations access to
adequate food security. However, the concept of sustainable devel-
Abbreviations: CZSD, coastal zone sustainable development; ENS, environmental
subsystem; SO, Ssocial subsystem; ECS, economic subsystem; DCZ, integrated coor-
dinate degree; SCZ, developmental sustainability; KSD, sustainable development
degree; GDP, gross domestic production; GPI, genuine progress indicator.
∗ Corresponding author at: Yantai Institute of Coastal Zone Research, Chinese
Academy of Sciences, No. 17, Chunhui Road, Yantai, 264003, China.
Tel.: +86 535 210 9196; fax: +86 535 210 9000.
E-mail addresses: ljyu@yic.ac.cn (L.J. Yu), xyhou@yic.ac.cn (X.Y. Hou),
mgao@yic.ac.cn (M. Gao), pshi@yic.ac.cn (P. Shi).
from different disciplines attempt to understand and define more
precisely the meaning of sustainable development, which requires
a suitable quantification in socio-economic, cultural and scientific
terms (Marques et al., 2009). In order to provide a scientific basis for
decision-makers, therefore, it is very necessary to comprehensively
assess the status of regional development with regard to economy,
resources and environment (UNDP, 2007). Although a lot of effort
had been done by the Government and the non-governmental
organizations (Alves et al., 2007; Nader et al., 2008; UNDP, 1990),
the methodology of monitoring and evaluation was still in issues.
Meanwhile, people had investigated the sustainable development
from different perspectives, such as the separate indicators and
composite index (Krajnc and Glavic, 2005; López-Ridaura et al.,
2002; Shi et al., 2004; Singh et al., 2007, 2009; Xiong, 2007). But
a versatile method was still an open question. A Pilot Program
was established in 2003 under the auspice of intergovernmental
Oceanographic Commission (IOC) of UNESCO to promote the devel-
opment and use of ICOM indicators (IOC and Heileman, 2008), by
developing, selecting, and applying indicators to measure, evalu-
ate, and report on the progress and outcomes of integrated coastal
and ocean management initiatives (DEDUCE, 2006, 2007). The EU
ICZM Expert group in November 2004 also called for an integrated
approach to monitor and measure the sustainable development
of the coastal zone (Breton et al., 2006). DEDUCE (Développement
Durable des Zones Côtières Européennes), supported by the Inter-
reg III-south Community Initiative Programme, gave a core set of

1470-160X/$ – see front matter © 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.ecolind.2010.04.003
 L. Yu et al. / Ecological Indicators 10 (2010) 1218–1225
27 indicators, composed of 46 measurements, to monitor sustain-
able development of the coastal zone by means of environmental,
social and economic indicators for measuring the degree of sus-
tainable development of the European coastal zones (Breton et al.,
2006; DEDUCE, 2006). In Europe, besides, Belgium had pioneered
in implementing a set of 20 indicators for the coast through devel-
oping an interactive website, a publication ‘the coastal compasses,
a SWOT-analyses and evaluation of the indicators, etc. (Hannelorel
et al., 2007)’.
Although there have been proposed many principles and the-
oretical frameworks about sustainable development assessment,
cases studies are still scarce. This paper is such an interesting
study that a detailed analysis of sustainable development of a
coastal city of China will be presented. The methodology was
introduced to assess the coastal sustainable development progress,
which designed a framework of 36 indicators represent environ-
mental subsystem (ENS), social subsystem (SOS) and economic
subsystem (ECS). As an example, the method was extended to ana-
lyze the regional development of Yantai as a case for one decade
(1998–2007) by examining economic performance and considering
various eco-environmental factors.
2. Materials and methods
2.1. Study area
Yantai is a coastal city, which is located in the middle part of
Jiaodong peninsula, the largest peninsula in China (see Fig. 1 for
more details). The coastline is 909 km (702.5 km mainland coast-
line and 206.5 km island coastline) and the coastal zone in Yantai
amounts to 2100 km2 . Since the implementation of the reform and
opening up policy, Yantai is one of the most rapid developed areas
in China.
Fig. 1. Map of Yantai, China, Its administrative area includes five districts (Zhifu, Fushan, Laishan, Muping and Economic Development Zone), seven county-city (Laizhou,
Zhaoyuan, Longkou, Penglai, Laiyang, Haiyang, and Qixia), and one island county (Changdao).
1219
2.2. Data and methods
2.2.1. Data sources
Data collection is an important work before operating an assess-
ment. The good indicators should be easy to be understood,
sensitive to changes and relevant among themselves (OECD, 2008;
UNDP, 2007). Especially, they will be evaluated to be scientifi-
cally sound and statistically valid, capable of providing quantitative
information. According the designed index system (Appendix A),
the data collected was ranging from socio-economic (popula-
tion, ports, GDP, etc.) to environmental data (arable land, SO2
emissions, forest cover, etc.). That is, the data of population,
social and economic mainly came from local public statistical
administration, while the environmental data came from local
environment, forest, sea bureaus administrations. In total, the num-
ber of final dataset was consisted of more than 400 including
information of eco-society and resource environment in the period
of 1998–2007.
2.2.2. Index system and models
The index system framework can be seen from Appendix A,
which consisted of 36 indicators (I1 –I36 ). Ij is the variable from
the raw data normalized with max–min method (Salvati and Zitti,
2009; UNDP, 2007). Among them, six indicators were grouped into
a set called thematic index (B1 , B2 , B3 , B4 , B5 and B6 ). B1 , B2 and B3
were designed to represent the coordination degree of three sub-
systems, while B4 , B5 , and B6 represented the sustainability of three
subsystems. And three models that represent integrated coordinate
degree (DCZ ), developmental sustainability (SCZ ), and sustainable
development degree (KSD ) were also given (Niu, 1999; Xiong, 2007).
DCZ measures the development level and coordination degree of
ENS, SOS, and ECS, SCZ measures the size of sustainability of three
subsystems, and KSD comprehensively measures the development
1220 L. Yu et al. / Ecological Indicators 10 (2010) 1218–1225

level, ability and state of CZSD. Table 1

 Values of indices calculated in Yantai coastal zone.
3
DCZ = (Wi Bi )2 i = 1, 2, 3 (1) Year B1 B2 B3 DCZ B4 B5 B6 SCZ KSD
i=1
1998 0.43 0.06 0.17 0.14 0.35 0.05 0.18 0.22 0.17
3 1999 0.45 0.04 0.34 0.18 0.45 0.04 0.37 0.32 0.24
SCZ = Wi Bi i = 4, 5, 6 (2) 2000 0.41 0.19 0.41 0.20 0.60 0.06 0.42 0.41 0.29
i=1 2001 0.55 0.23 0.44 0.24 0.40 0.12 0.55 0.38 0.30
2002 0.59 0.32 0.47 0.26 0.51 0.24 0.54 0.45 0.35

6i
2003 0.57 0.49 0.50 0.30 0.54 0.39 0.68 0.55 0.40
Bi = (ωj Ij ) i = 1, 2 . . . , 6, j = 1, 2, . . . , 36 (3) 2004 0.52 0.54 0.50 0.30 0.52 0.55 0.55 0.54 0.40
j=6i−5 2005 0.43 0.71 0.62 0.36 0.68 0.71 0.64 0.67 0.49
 2006 0.46 0.78 0.74 0.40 0.56 0.84 0.63 0.65 0.51
KSD = DCZ .SCZ (4) 2007 0.54 0.89 0.83 0.46 0.76 0.95 0.74 0.80 0.61

The meaning of B1 , B2 , B3 , B4 , B5 and B6 , see Fig. 4.

where DCZ is the index of integrated coordination degree of CZSD,
0 < DCZ < 1. B1 , B2 and B3 represent the capacity level of ENS, ECS
and SOS, respectively, and B4 , B5 and B6 represent the sustainability
level of ENS, ECS and SOS, respectively. Wi is the weight of crite-
3 6
ria layer corresponding Bi , W = 1 and
i=1 i
W = 1; ωj is the
i=4 i
Barometer of Sustainability (Hannelorel et al., 2007; Prescott-Allen,
6i 1995; Prescott-Allen and IUCN, 1997)is a tool for measuring and
weight of indicator layer Ij , ω = 1, Ij is the indicator treated
j=6i−5 i communicating social welfare and progress towards sustainable
through normalization of raw data of individual indicator, 0 < Ij < 1;
development. The meaning of CZSD includes two aspects: sus-
SCZ is the index of sustainability of CZSD, 0 < SCZ < 1. KSD is an index
tainability and coordination of environmental–economical–social
of CZSD which is the geometric mean of DCZ and SCZ , 0 < KSD < 1.
subsystems. According to Eq. (4), KSD was computed through the
two indexes of SCZ and DCZ . Both coordination and sustainability
2.2.3. Weight-determining
are equally important, and neither can be neglected. It indicates
A combination of subjective and objective methods was
that SCZ and DCZ were equally important from the starting point of
employed to determine the weight of index system using Analytic
the barometer. The judgment of CZSD was based on the axes with
Hierarchy Process (AHP) (Saaty, 1980) and Principal Component
the lower score (the worse performance). This can avoid trade-offs
Analysis (PCA) methods in this paper (Blancas et al., 2009; OECD,
between DCZ and SCZ , e.g. in 2007, we can see that the values of DCZ
2008).
and SCZ in 2007 are 0.46 and 0.80, respectively. Namely, SCZ had
arrived at an excellent state while the DCZ was just in a medium
(1) ωj : Calculation of the weight in indicator layer was based on
state. Obviously, the KSD was determined simultaneously by them,
PCA. Due to the different indicators included in each thematic
and then located in good state (see Fig. 2) In addition, we can see
indicator of criteria layer (Alves et al., 2007; Salvati and Zitti,
that the state of DCZ in 2004 was smaller than that in 2003 when the
2009), each set was then calculated by PCA to determine its
regression development happened. Summarily, directly judged by
indicators’ weight. Weights were expressed in percentages and
the barometer of sustainability, the development degree of coastal
range between 0 and 1. The weight calculations were per-
zone in Yantai during the ten years was almost in the potentially
formed in SPSS 13 software running on the Windows platform.
unsustainable development or intermediate sustainable develop-
We normalized the value of eigenvector of first component,
ment, except in 1998 and in 2007.
which meant computing the sum of normalized weights and
then divided each weight by the sum, then took this value as
indicator’s weight. The eigenvector of first component in each
thematic was chosen because its contribution rate of the total
variance is at least more than 50%.
(2) Wi : application of PCA was not sufficient because the principal
components are linear combinations of the original variables.
There was a drawback that hinders the comparative analy-
sis (Blancas et al., 2009). This problem was solved by the
application of AHP method. AHP was a suitable approach for
undertaking quantitative as well as qualitative analysis which
can assist with identifying and weighting selection criteria to
analyze the data collected for the criteria layer.

3. Results

After the raw statistica data treated by the max–min method, the
weight ωj were calculated by PCA method in each set composed of
six indicators. Then, the index value of thematic index (Bi ) can be
got by Eq. (3). Finally, the composite index of DCZ , SCZ and KSD were
computed through Eq. (1), Eq. (2) and Eq. (4), respectively. All the
index value were summarized and shown as following (Table 1).
3.1. The status of CZSD
In order to vividly demonstrate the status of CZSD, an improved
‘barometer of sustainability’ was used. Fig. 3 shows the status of
CZSD in Yantai. As a comprehensive sustainability indicators, the
Fig. 2. The barometer of sustainability in Yantai. The two indices consist of a suite of
indicators that are rated to give performance scores that are plotted as coordinates
on a two-dimensional scale to yield a visual representation. Both indices are mea-
sured on a performance scale. The barometers scale is divided into five sectors given
a fully controlled scale. The index range is also divided into five grades, displayed
as −10%, −20%, −30%, −40% and −50% gray values, respectively. Every point on the
curve indicate a year within study period,  represents the coordinate (SCZ , DCZ ) and
䊉 represents coordinates (KSD , KSD ). KSD will be much large only when SCZ and DCZ
are both large simultaneously. And therefore we can determine the state of CZSD
based on position where KSD located in the barometer.
 L. Yu et al. / Ecological Indicators 10 (2010) 1218–1225
Fig. 3. The development trends of DCZ , SCZ and KSD . The vertical coordinate denotes
the value of the index, and the index value is in the range of 0–1. In order to reflect the
status of each index, the index range is divided into five grades: bad (0, 0.2), unsus-
tainable; poor (0.2, 0.4), potentially unsustainable; medium (0.4, 0.6), intermediate;
good (0.6, 0.8), potentially sustainable; excellent (0.8, 1.0), sustainable.
3.2. Trend of DCZ , SCZ and KSD
In Fig. 3, the curves of DCZ , SCZ and KSD denoted for the variation
trends of coordination, sustainability and sustainable development
level of regional economic, social and the environment, respec-
tively. From the perspective of coordination, it showed trends of
continuously increasing, and only weak variations among the three
subsystems can be found. From the perspective of sustainability, it
appeared a continuous and steady growth for the three subsystems.
It was shown that DCZ , SCZ and KSD were rapidly becoming better
between 1998 and 2007 (Fig. 3). The index value of DCZ, SCZ and
KSD were up from 0.14, 0.22 and 0.19, to 0.46, 0.80 and 0.59 in
1998–2007, respectively. Sustainability (SCZ ) was fast from weak
sustainability to strong sustainability than the other two (DCZ and
KSD ), which were from unsustainable state (bad) into intermediate
state (medium). The linear regression for DCZ, SCZ and KSD are as
follows:
y = 0.0332x + 0.1012
y = 0.0574x + 0.1836
y = 0.0437x + 0.1360
where x is the ith year evaluated. It took nine years, two years and
five years for DCZ , SCZ and KSD to arrive the medium sustainable
development status (0.40–0.60) since 1998, respectively.
3.3. Progress analysis of sustainable development
Within the study area, we got the radar figures to observe the
coordination and sustainability of three subsystems by processing
the data (Table 1). Thus, we can understand the relationships of
complex systems by radar figure. To sum up, the total situation of
radar figure in 1998–2007 seemed from ‘thin’ to ‘fat’. It followed
two stages: in 1998–2003, the coordination level and the sustain-
ability of ECS were lower than the two others when started from
1998, and so the whole radar looked ‘thin’; in 2004–2007, the coor-
dination level and the sustainability of ENS decreased slightly, those
of society increased slowly, while the speed of ECS grows fast, and
accordingly the whole of radar looked ‘fat’.
1221
3.3.1. First stage (1998–2003)
The three subsystems were very uncoordinated in 1998, and the
level of sustainability was also very low. In particular, the coordi-
nation level and the sustainability of ENS were significantly higher
than the level of ECS (B1 > B3 > B2 , B4 > B6 > B5 ). ECS initially perfor-
mance the weak level and ability of the sustainable development.
The situation changed in 1999–2003, and the three subsystems
capacities had been improved so that ECS was promoted by the
other subsystems. The capacity and sustainability of ECS had made
significant progress, which reached 0.49 and 0.68 in 2003 respec-
tively. Hence, the ability of sustainable development of the coastal
zone was further improved by natural capital and social capital. In
contrast, those of ENS and SOS had increased slowly. Nevertheless,
the development level of the economic subsystem was still in the
“bottleneck”. Although the capacity and sustainability level of three
subsystems was from bad into poor, the sustainable development
degree (KSD ) of Yantai is still in the state of potentially unsustainable
development keeping unchanged (Fig. 2).
3.3.2. Second stage (2004–2007)
As a result of reduction critical natural capital (Ekins et al., 2003)
of arable land resources and influence of industrial pollution, the
carrying capacity of ENS showed a slow downward trend in the
process of transformation.
3.3.2.1. Coordination (DCZ ). The capacity level of ENS in 2004 was
slightly lower than 2003, while the sustainability of ENS also
decreased slightly, or even lower. Likewise, the capacity level of
SOS was gradually enhanced after keeping stable in 2004. And yet,
the capacity level of ECS was greatly enhanced and arrived at a high
stage after its value was more than the other systems in 2004. At
last, its value reached 0.89 in 2007.
3.3.2.2. Sustainability (SCZ ). ENS slightly declined after 2003 and
arrived at 0.76 in 2007. SOS increased with a small growth rate
after the sudden drop in 2004, whose value was 0.74 in 2007. Still,
ECS appeared a significant increase and got a high stage because its
value was more than other two. By the end of the study period, ECS
nearly got the highest value, 0.95 in 2007.
4. Discussion
(5) In this paper, we presented a whole assessment process from
three dimensions of environment, economy and society subsys-
(6) tems and chose a coastal city of China-Yantai as a case study.
Regarded as one complex system including ENS, SOS, and ECS, the
(7) coastal zone can be measured by reference to multiple indicators.
By monitoring and evaluation of the gap of the coastal zone, it can
reflect the multi-objective of environment, economic and social
harmonious development in coastal zone, and can also reflect the
level and problems of regional sustainable development compre-
hensively.
The results showed that Yantai has experienced a highly devel-
opment period, and DCZ , SCZ and KSD all stayed with a rising
“tunnels” during the past decade years. On one hand, from an
improved ‘barometer of sustainability’, the results directly indi-
cated that the level of coordination and sustainability of coastal
zone within the study area continuously improved for 10 years. On
the other hand, comparing with the two stages from radar figure, as
an illustration of weak sustainability at the first stage, man-made
and natural capital are substitutable (Pearce and Atkinson, 1993;
Ekins et al., 2003; Wen et al., 2007). The economic growth attributed
to the availability of natural resources for the production of con-
sumption goods and the environment condition (Neumayer, 2003;
Kulig et al., 2010), or sacrifice of social welfare. In contrast, at the
second stage, the index value of each subsystem was relatively so
1222 L. Yu et al. / Ecological Indicators 10 (2010) 1218–1225

equal that radar figure looks “good” in 2004, when the capacity and
sustainability value of ECS (B2 and B4 ) surpass the two others for the
first time. It also indicated that Yantai experienced a period depen-
dent on from environment-based to social–economic-based in the
past 10 years. However, the capacities of three subsystems were
radically changed in the process; the capacity level of environment
subsystem perhaps gets the ecological criticality in 2002, which is
the maximum in ten years. Later, it restored gradually after arriving
at 0.43 at the lower level in 2005. Obviously, we can see that nat-
ural resources cannot be substituted by physical or human capital
only as the essential inputs in economic production, consumption,
or welfare (Wen et al., 2007). Therefore, it is essential that natural
capital, human capital and their interactive relationship should be
paid special attention for sustainable development assessment.

4.1. Sustainable development, critical natural capital and

ecological resilience

CZSD is a complex multi-dimensional synthesis system, thus,

the final goal of CZSD at the top-level should be sustainable, steady
and healthy development of natural–economic–social complex
system. In other words, it can be summed up into three interrelated
and indivisible characteristics which are ecological sustainability,
economic sustainability and social sustainability (Hediger, 2000;
Ronchi et al., 2002; Spangenberg, 2004). Among them, the main-
tenance of critical natural capital (Turner, 1993) is an important
objective of sustainable development. Critical natural capital in
weak sustainability is not substitutable to human well-being with
other types of capital, such as the food, raw materials or drinking
water, which can provide the essential and life-securing ecosystem
functions. Brand (2009) and Marques et al. (2009) thought critical
natural capital is an important step in quest for sustainable devel-
opment, which may help environmental policy and management
to identify the natural capital that ought to be preserved in any
circumstances for current and future generations.
In all of coastal natural capital, critical natural capital is impor-
tant for the quality of life and the survival of humans as an
important objective of sustainability. Importance and degree of
threat are described as the two ecological aspects of critical natu-
ral capital. Human activities can bring changes of ecosystem types, Fig. 4. Comparison of coordination and sustainability of the coastal zone in different
the vulnerability of species richness or pressure on ecosystems, time of Yantai. B1, B2 and B3 represent the capacity level of ENS, ECS and SOS,
respectively; B4, B5 and B6 represent the sustainability level of ENS, ECS and SOS.
resulted in the ecological, socio-cultural or economic importance
of critical natural capital; the degree of threat is assessed based on
changes in quantity and quality of the remaining natural capital the adverse impact of economic activity on the environment. The
(Brand, 2009). activities like CO2 emissions, pollution, and resource depletion and
In order to estimate the degree of threat that specific ecosys- environment degradation can lead harm to the natural subsystems.
tems face, besides vulnerability, integrity and ecosystem health, And in society subsystem, people have to accept longer hours and
etc., ecological resilience can help a great deal in specifying the ‘eco- reduce job security, so that the activities like income inequality,
logical criticality’ of specific renewable parts of the natural capital. unemployment, and crime can also cause harm to the well-being. As
Ecological resilience is defined as the capacity to absorb shocks and having adverse economic impacts, these important factors on the
still maintain “function”, or defined as the capacity of an ecosystem human, social, and natural capital not all recognized in GDP should
to resist disturbance and still maintain a specified state. Ecologi- be explicitly integral components of sustainable development.
cal resilience cannot be measured directly, it must be estimated Developed to consider those costs, from the GPI perspective
by means of resilience surrogates to empirically estimate surro- (Cobb et al., 1995; Anielski and Rowe, 1999), GPI attempts to
gates for ecological resilience (Carpenter et al., 2005). The degree overcome these shortcomings. In addition, GPI also include the
of ecological resilience is inversely related to the degree of threat components such as the estimated value of household work as
ecosystems are prone to. So, the empirical estimates of ecological positive contributors which ignored by GDP (Fig. 4).
resilience can be used as a further criterion for the criticality of Based on those factors above, we did not use GDP as an indicator
natural capital (Brand, 2009). of ECS in the index system, but calculated the GPI of Yantai (the cal-
culation method of GPI of Yantai see Hamilton, 1999; Lawn, 2001;
4.2. GDP vs. GPI McDonald et al., 2009). Fig. 5 shows GPI a totally different picture of
social progress from that of GDP’s in Yantai from 1998 to 2007. The
While the natural capital in environment subsystem provide the gap between the two lines (GDP and GPI) has widened for the first
essential foundation on which market production can take place, three years. Afterwards, GPI that peaked in 2006 is growing faster
higher economic growth does not guarantee that welfare will be than GDP. At the end of years, the gap of them became larger again.
increased. The present GDP account takes almost no account of Namely, the GDP raised from over ¥50,000 million to just under
 L. Yu et al. / Ecological Indicators 10 (2010) 1218–1225 1223

cient), their weights were relatively high, which indicated that land
resources, environmental quality, economic prosperity and qual-
ity of social life have more effects on CZSD. On the other hand for
sustainability (SCZ ), several indicators (the proportion of Environ-
mental investment accounted for the region GDP, Gas emissions per
unit area, Forest cover), their weights were relatively large, which
reflecting the environmental management play an important role
for sustainability. However, the weight of the population density
was higher than the contribution rate of science and technology
and the weight of the natural population growth rate, which did not
highlight an important contribution on society sustainable devel-
opment by the progress of science and technology, and can not
be stressed excessive pressure on social sustainable development
by excessive population growth, either. Therefore, the weight of
some indicators calculated in this paper also needed to revise and
improve.

Fig. 5. Comparison of GDP and GPI in Yantai between 1998 and 2007. 5. Summary

The research presented here is therefore a tentative attempt to

¥300,000 million, in contrast, the GPI has increased from ¥38,989 extrapolate from what has been learned during the study by draw-
million to ¥165,528 million over the same period. It shows that the ing upon experience elsewhere. In this assessment, perhaps, there
GPI of Yantai has grown much more slowly than the growth in GDP. might be some limitations in selecting the indicators or determin-
Although the GDP growth is traced as an upward-increasing curve, ing the indicators’ weight, e.g., the indictors chosen in this study
the GPI growth is traced as a relatively changeable line. cannot completely represent the whole status of coastal zone. Thus,
This suggests that GDP growth has not incorporated social costs we made our effort to replace GDP for GPI in index system. Not
incurred by economic activities aiming at high economic growth withstanding some limitations, this study does focus on the coor-
performance, which captures only one aspect of well-being and it dination of economic and environmental development, and take
is not a sufficient indicator of people’s comprehensive well-being. account of the damage of economic development on environmen-
When Yantai had achieved high economic growth, as the large tal and depletion of natural resources in assessment. Actually, it
gap between GDP and GPI shows, a substantial proportion of GDP leads to a good outset to comprehensive assessment of coastal zone
growth has been made at the expense of environmental degrada- sustainable development.
tion and social costs.
At present, local governments in China, especially in the coastal
Acknowledgements
zone, are still putting their efforts to improve GDP level, which
incurred critique about the importance and effectiveness of eco-
The authors wish to express their gratitude to the referees for
nomic growth. In a word, the sustainable development is not equal
their valuable and helpful comments, which have improved the
to the growth of economic, which cannot ensure truly social and
quality of the paper. This research has been funded by the research
economic welfare and people’s well-being.
projects of the Shandong Province Science and Technology Devel-
opment Project (No. 2007GG2QT06019), the Knowledge Innovation
4.3. Uncertainty analysis Program of the Chinese Academy of Sciences (No. KZCX2-YW-
224) and the National Natural Science Foundation of China (No.
Sustainable development itself is a multi-dimensional concept 40801016).
and demands consideration of trade-offs among environmen-
tal, social and economic impacts. In this paper, we concentrated Appendix A. The index system in assessment of CZSD.
on coastal zone development assessment using system analysis
method by mainly taking statistical data, but the necessary infor- Target Criteria layer Indicator layer and weight
mation was not incomplete. Thus, some limitations of this study layer and weight
were surely existed for that the assessment of CZSD in Yantai was
I ωi
only for the past period. The sustainability required a long-term
B1 : LEN I1 : per capita arable land 0.2100
perspective, but currently available evidence was short-term and
I2 : SO2 emissions per unit 0.1770
incomplete. area (–)
Although many indicators can be used to monitor the process I3 : annual per capita water 0.0626
of sustainable development, indicators and models used in this consumption (–)
paper have their own shortcomings in practice. Moreover, not all W1 = 0.2905 I4 : GDP energy 0.2045
consumption per 10,000
the selected indicators are suitable, by evaluating and adjusting the
Yuan (–)
set of indicators, the indicator set should provide a more real sta- I5 : COD of industrial waster 0.1417
A1 : DCZ
tus of coastal development. The analysis in this paper has focused (-)
on both environmental sustainability and eco-social sustainability. I6 : Forest cover 0.2043
B2 : LEC I7 : Regional GPI (Genuine 0.1927
In making this assessment, particular consideration have not been
Progress Indicator)
given to data-weighting issues that were likely to have a seriously I8 : Regional GPI per capita 0.1893
impact on the result. For example, the weight of some indicators I9 : The added value of 0.0814
appeared not consistent with the reality (Appendix A). On one hand tertiary industry accounted
for DCZ , some indicators (per capita arable land, GDP energy con- for the proportion of GDP
W2 = 0.3548 I10 : The actual utilization of 0.1809
sumption per 10,000 Yuan, Forest cover, Regional GPI, Port total KSD
foreign investment
cargo throughput per year, the level of urbanization, Engle coeffi-
1224 L. Yu et al. / Ecological Indicators 10 (2010) 1218–1225
Appendix A (Continued )
Target Criteria layer Indicator layer and weight
layer and weight
I ωi
I11 : The output value of
marine industries
accounted for the
proportion of GDP
I12 : Port total cargo
throughput per coastline
B3 : LSO I13 : The region’s total
population
I14 : The level of
urbanization
I15 : Numbers of scientists
and technicians per 1000
W3 = 0.3548 I16 : Ratio of Urban and
rural residents per capita
annual income (–)
I17 : Engel’s coefficient (–)
I18 : The average annual
consumption expenditure
of urban and rural
residents per capita
B4 : SEN I19 : The proportion of
Environmental investment
accounted for the region
GDP
I20 : The rate of industrial
waste water discharge
standards
I21 : Wastewater discharge
per 10,000 Yuan (–)
A2 : SCZ
W4 = 0.4254 I22 : Gas emissions Per unit
area (–)
I23 : Nature Reserve
coverage
I24 : Forest cover
B5 : SEC I25 : Regional GPI per captia
I26 : Regional GDP growth
rate
I27 : Coastal Zone economic
density
W5 = 0.2494 I28 : Urban per capita
disposable income
I29 : Per capita savings
deposits
I30 : Port total cargo
throughput per coastline
B6 : SSO I31 : Population density
I32 : The natural population
growth rate (–)
I33 : Numbers of scientists
and technicians per 1000
W6 = 0.3256 I34 : The proportion of R & D
funds accounted for GDP
I35 : Engel’s coefficient (–)
I36 : The contribution rate
of science and technology
References
Alves, F.L., Silva, C.P., Pinto, F., 2007. The assessment of coastal zone develop-
ment at a regional level—the case study of the Portuguese Central Area.
J. Coastal. Res., 72–76, SI 50 (Proceedings of the 9th International Coastal
Symposium).
Anielski, M., Rowe, J., 1999. The Genuine Progress Indicator-1998 Update, Executive
Summary. Redefining Progress, San Fransisco, CA.
Blancas, F.J., Gonzaelez, M., Lozano-Oyola, M., Paerez, F., 2009. The assessment of
sustainable tourism: application to Spanish coastal destinations. Ecol. Indic. 10,
484–492.
Brand, F., 2009. Critical natural capital revisited: ecological Resilience and sustain-
able development. Ecol. Econ. 68, 605–612.
Breton, F., Gilbert, C., Marti, X., 2006. Report on the Use of the ICZM Indicators
from the WG-ID. A Contribution to the ICZM Evaluation. Version 1. Universitat
Antònoma, Barcelona, p. 1.
Brundtland, 1987. Our Common Future: The World Commission on Environment
and Development. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Carpenter, S.R., Westley, F., Turner, M.G., 2005. Surrogates for resilience of
social–ecological systems. Ecosystems 8, 941–944.
0.1646
Chen, J.Y., Chen, S.L., 2002. Estuarine and coastal challenges in China. Chinese. J.
Oceano. Limnol. 20, 174–181.
Hamilton, Clive, 1999. The genuine progress indicator methodological develop-
ments and results from Australia. Ecol. Econ. 30, 13–28.
0.1911 Cobb, C., Halstead, T., Rowe, J., 1995. The Genuine Progress Indicator: Summary of
Data and Methodology. Redefining Progress, Washington, DC.
0.1671 DEDUCE, 2006. Consortium, Evaluation models for sustainable development of Euro-
pean coastal zones, pp. 3.
0.1682 DEDUCE, 2007. Consortium, Indicators Guidelines: to Adopt an Indicators-based
Approach to Evaluate Coastal Sustainable Development. Department of the Envi-
0.1624 ronment and Housing, Government of Catalonia, Catalonia.
Ekins, P., Simon, S., Deutsch, L., Folke, C., De Groot, R., 2003. A framework for the
0.1683 practical application of the concepts of critical natural capital and strong sus-
tainability. Ecol. Econ. 44, 165–185.
Hannelorel, M., Belpaemel, K., Lescrauwaet, A.K., Mees, J., 2007. Indicators as
guides for Integrated Coastal Zone Management. http://www.safecoast.org/
0.1685
editor/databank/File/Belgian%20indicators%20for%20iczm.pdf.
0.1654 Hediger, W., 2000. Sustainable development and social welfare. Ecol. Econ. 32,
481–492.
Huang, Y.F., Cui, S.H., Ouyang, Z.Y., 2008. Integrated ecological assessment as the
basis for management of a coastal urban protected area: a case study of Xiamen,
0.1227 China. Int. J. Sust. Dev. World 15, 389–394.
The Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission (IOC) of UNESCO, Heileman,
S., 2008. A Handbook for Measuring the Progress and Outcomes of Integrated
Coastal and Ocean Management. UNESCO, ICAM Dossier, 2, Paris, pp. 216.
0.0267 Kulig, A., Kolfoort, H., Hoekrstra, R., 2010. The case for the hybrid capital approach
for the measurement of the welfare and sustainability. Ecol. Indic. 10 (2), 118–
128.
Krajnc, D., Glavic, P., 2005. A model for integrated assessment of
0.1626
sustainable development. Resour. Conserv. Recycling 43, 189–
208.
0.2302 Lawn, P., 2001. An assessment of the valuation methods used to calculate the
index of sustainable economic welfare (ISEW), genuine progress indicator
0.2135 (GPI), and sustainable net benefit index (SNBI). Env. Dev. Sustain. 7, 185–
208.
0.2443 López-Ridaura, S., Masera, O., Astier, M., 2002. Evaluating the sustainability of
0.1674 complex socio-environmental systems-the MESMIS framework. Ecol. Indic. 2,
0.1453 135–148.
Marques, J.C., Basset, A., Brey, T., Elliott, M., 2009. The ecological sustainability
0.1721 trigon—a proposed conceptual framework for creating and testing management
scenarios. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 58, 1773–1779.
0.1714 McDonald, D.G., Forgie, V., Zhang, Y.j., Andrew, R., Smith, N., 2009. Summary
report—a genuine progress indicator for the Auckland region. July 2009.
http://www.arc.govt.nz/albany/fms/main/Documents/Auckland/Population%
0.1735
20and%20stats/GPI%20summary%20report.pdf.
Nader, M.R., Salloum, B.A., Karam, N., 2008. Environment and sustainable develop-
0.1703 ment indicators in Lebanon: a practical municipal level approach. Ecol. Indic. 8,
771–777.
0.1848 Niu, W.Y., 1999. Strategic Report of Chinese Sustainable Development in 1999. Sci-
0.1133 ence Press, Beijing (in Chinese).
Neumayer, E., 2003. Weak Versus Strong Sustainability: Exploring the Limits of Two
0.1847 Opposing Paradigms. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, UK.
OECD, 2008. Handbook on Constructing Composite Indicators: Methodology and
0.1638 User Guide. OECD Publishing.
Pearce, D.W., Atkinson, G., 1993. Capital theory and the measurement of sustain-
0.1928 able development: an indicator of weak sustainability. Ecol. Econ. 8, 103–
108.
0.1604
Prescott-Allen, R., 1995. Barometer of Sustainability: A Method of Assessing Progress
Towards Sustainable Societies. PADATA, Victoria, Canada.
Prescott-Allen, R., IUCN, 1997. Barometer of Sustainability: Measuring and Commu-
nicating Wellbeing and Sustainable Development. IUCN, International Union for
Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources.
Ronchi, E., Federico, A., Musmeci, F., 2002. A system oriented integrated indicator
for sustainable development in Italy. Ecol. Indic. 2, 197–210.
Saaty, T.L., 1980. Analytical Hierarchy Process: Planning, Priority Setting, Resource
Allocation. McGraw-Hill, New York.
Salvati, L., Zitti, M., 2009. Substitutability and weighting of ecological and economic
indicators: exploring the importance of various components of a synthetic index.
Ecol. Econ. 68, 1093–1099.
Shi, C., Hutchinson, S.M., Xu, S., 2004. Evaluation of coastal zone sustainability: an
integrated approach applied in Shanghai Municipality and Chong Ming Island.
J. Environ. Manage. 71, 335–344.
Singh, R.K., Murty, H.R., Gupta, S.K., Dikshit, A.K., 2007. Development of compos-
ite sustainability performance index for steel industry. Ecol. Indic. 7, 565–
588.
Singh, R.K., Murty, H.R., Gupta, S.K., Dikshit, A.K., 2009. An overview of sustainability
assessment methodologies. Ecol. Indic. 9, 189–212.
Spangenberg, J.H., 2004. Reconciling sustainability and growth: criteria, indicators,
policies. Sustainable Develop. 12, 74–86.
 L. Yu et al. / Ecological Indicators 10 (2010) 1218–1225 1225

Turner, R.K. (Ed.), 1993. Sustainable Environmental Economics and Management:
Principles and Practice. Belhaven Press, New York.
UNDP, 1990. Human Development Report. Oxford University Press, New York.
United Nations, 2007. Indicators of Sustainable Development: Guidelines and
Methodologies, 3rd ed. Department of Economic and Social Affairs of United
Nations, New York.
Wen, Z.G., Zhang, K.M., Du, B., Li, Y.D., Li, W., 2007. Case study on the use of genuine
progress indicator to measure urban economic welfare in China. Ecol. Econ. 63,
463–475.
Xiong, Y.Z., 2007. Study on assessment model of coastal zone sustainable develop-
ment and its application: a case study of Guangdong prorovince, South China.
PhD Thesis. Graduate School, CAS, Beijing, China. pp. 49–68 (in Chinese).